US Should Promote ESL Education Instead of “English Only” Laws

In 2005, Zach Rubio was caught speaking Spanish, his father’s native language, in the hallways of his Kansas City public school. The junior high school student was suspended for two days because the staff interpreted this as a violation of Missouri’s then “English-only” law.

Five years later, Arizona passed a bill banning ethnic studies classes in public schools. The state thought these classes preached the overthrow of the U.S. government by emphasizing the solidarity of an ethnic group.

In Queens, one of New York’s most ethnically diverse cities, the city introduced bill last summer requiring that all businesses also post their signs in English. (The reason behind this was so police and firefighters could easily find them.)

The U.S. Constitution does not mention a common national language, so states have taken it upon themselves to force monolingualism within the government. Proponents claim that these “English only” laws are way of unifying the country, while others, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, see it as a threat to free speech. Whether it’s a symbolic gesture of national pride or something else, I don’t see a need to create these laws. English is the most desired language in the world, so why does the US feel that its national identity will be threatened if we don’t declare English as the official language?

Again and again, politicians have tried to get this to happen, even trying to amend immigration laws with add-ons stating that the US should “preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language…”

I can see why a country like Denmark, with barely 6 million people, might want to be a little proactive about keeping Danish alive on the world stage. But when it comes to the US, as linguist Geoffrey Pullum put it, “Declaring English the official language is as urgent as declaring hotdogs the official food at a baseball game.”

There are more people in the world right now that speak English as a second language than there are actual native speakers. English is not exactly on the brink of extinction, so there shouldn’t be a rush to “preserve” it.

Another argument for “English Only” laws is that they will help promote English learning among immigrants.

What I don’t understand is why lawmakers think that immigrants need more encouragement, or that they are unwilling to learn English already. Nowadays in the US, an immigrant’s native language usually doesn’t even survive to the third generation.

Removing all Spanish signs on city buses for the sake of “English only” is a step in the wrong direction, because moves like this just alienate foreigners further. The US government should instead find ways to make ESL and adult literacy classes more accessible to people who need them. Penalizing immigrants (or their children) for having limited English skills, and removing all traces of anything other than English, just discourages multilingualism, which is the foundation for a stronger society.

Additional Resources:

• A 2005 article from the Washington Post about Zach Rubio's suspension for speaking Spanish.
• Founded in 1983, U.S. English, is the largest US group advocating for "English Only" laws. They're currently working to pass a federal bill, "The English Language Unity Act of 2011."
• The U.S. Department of Education's 2009 report stating that there needs to be more national and state-level effort on coordinating adult ESL programs.